"he amount of money being spent on drug enforcement and the imprisonment of low-level crimes (that in some cases shouldn't even be considered crimes), or how much more we put into our military and defense spending than we actually need to...this could all be going to helping people who really need it."

This money is being spent by the rich to protect their ability to make money in the global system. Example, the war on drugs is on behalf of big pharma.

Quote :

""Drug abuse is more often a result of homeless than a cause of homelessness." Which seems to be at odds with the third paragraph from your first link:"

Both statements can be true. Drug abuse causes people to be homeless and homelessness causes and prolongs drug abuse.

The point is that they can't begin to fix the deeper issues until they have a house.

Quote :

"Which is very different from, "If you have two houses, you are causing somebody to be homeless," a statement which really is demonstrably false. There is not a housing shortage in the United States. Nor, of course, is the amount of housing fixed. "

Total resources are pretty much fixed. Having two houses is not just about occupying the 2nd house, its about the resources required to obtain that house and the opportunity cost of not spending that money on other things. If the money spent on 2nd homes was all allocated to prevention of drug abuse, we could all agree that fewer people would be homeless.

Quote :

"and human desires are infinite."

that is called greed. human needs are finite and that is why people who are greedy and have excessively more than they need before everyone else has what they need should feel guilty.

Quote :

"If a measly $30B would end world hunger, then Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, Zuckerberg, George Soros, Bloomberg, the Walton and Hilton families, and the Koch brothers would have already done it."

no, they all recognize feeding everyone will expose more problems that need to be solved. If you ended hunger, population growth would increase dramatically and the 30 billion would get bigger and bigger each year.

Quote :

"Hell, for that matter, if you just waved the magic checkbook and fixed it, the U.S. would have probably long since tackled the majority of it in order to grow, solidify, and stabilize our strategic interests and sphere of influence."

you are assuming the us foreign policy is based on doing good in the world

Quote :

"^30 billion is only $10 per person in poverty. hah"

3Either your math is way off or you don't realize that there are less than 800 million undernourished people on Earth, not 3 billion...

"that is called greed. human needs are finite and that is why people who are greedy and have excessively more than they need before everyone else has what they need should feel guilty. "

It's called the human condition. Human desires are unlimited in the literal sense that nothing limits them. This as opposed to the availability of resources, which is limited in the literal sense that there are only so many of them available or able to be produced. Herein lies the actual definition of "scarcity."

We are all capable of wanting more things, and all but a negligible percentage of us do want more things. The wealthy are not more greedy than the poor, they've just been better or more fortunate in satisfying that greed.

"Drug abuse is more often a result of homelessness than a cause of homelessness.Don't argue FACTS unless you're going to reference actual data."

Bullshit. You're talking about "FACTS" after you completely misrepresent the "actual data" you post? Nowhere in that article does it imply "Drug abuse is more often a result of homelessness than a cause".

Quote :

" if you have two houses, you are causing someone to be homeless. Its society's fault for allowing these circumstances to occur. This is the basic concept of opportunity cost applied at the societal level."

This is horseshit. If you are applying “opportunity cost” to a wealthy person choosing buying another house, apply it to the hobo that chose to drop out of high school and try meth. It is not the fault of society for bad choices leading to bad results.

22% Job loss21% Family problems (domestic violence, divorce, death of family member with primary income)14% Substance abuse10% Increased expenses/Eviction upon being unable to pay (gentrification)7% Health (mental instability or medical condition)5% Prison/Jail time

And the other 21% is a long list of other stuff too small to individually list (natural disasters, house fires, abandonment by other family members...things that don't happen a lot but definitely happen). And oh yeah, the thousands of children born into homelessness each year.

A child born today has a 1 in 50 chance of experiencing homelessness in their lifetime.

"It's called the human condition. Human desires are unlimited in the literal sense that nothing limits them. This as opposed to the availability of resources, which is limited in the literal sense that there are only so many of them available or able to be produced. Herein lies the actual definition of "scarcity."

We are all capable of wanting more things, and all but a negligible percentage of us do want more things. The wealthy are not more greedy than the poor, they've just been better or more fortunate in satisfying that greed."

You can't make up your own definition of scarcity. Natural human greed you're talking about can be solved with education just like all the other primitive instincts we share. Desires may be unlimited but needs are discreet and can be measured to some degree.

We as a society have to have limits on greed just like we limit humans from doing other instinctual activities that harm others (murder, rape, etc)

Quote :

" It is not the fault of society for bad choices leading to bad results."

True, but it is societies responsibility to help those who have made mistakes get back on the right track. Bad choices are simply a result of poor education and that is society's fault.

Are you kidding? You're the one making up your own definition here. The definition of scarcity does not refer to some kind of excessive "greed."

Quote :

"Scarcity is the fundamental economic problem of having seemingly unlimited human wants in a world of limited resources. It states that society has insufficient productive resources to fulfill all human wants and needs."

Quote :

"The basic problem on which classical economic theory is built: simply, that human wants will always exceed the resources available to fulfill those wants."

This isn't something I made up: Human desires are unlimited, resources are limited, that is scarcity, and the problem of scarcity is why there is such a thing as "economics."

Quote :

"We as a society have to have limits on greed just like we limit humans from doing other instinctual activities that harm others (murder, rape, etc)"

We already have this. It's why, no matter how badly I want your computer (which I don't think you really need, anyway), no matter how great my greed for it is, I can't just come into your house and take it.

---

Quote :

"This is the minority of homeless people. It frustrates me so much when there's an assumption that any person on the streets deserves to be there."

And it frustrates me to see people creeping away from the relevant point of discussion, which is not "the cause of all homelessness."

We got onto the subject of homelessness via The E Man's absurd claim that Person X owning a beach house caused Person Y to be homeless. Even your breakdown of the causes of homelessness doesn't include "some guy owns a beach house somewhere." Nor is it even "someone else has too much money."

[And I'll point out that your google image search is hardly the definitive answer on that question. Even the links put up by The E Man contradict what you're saying, and he's supposed to be on your side. I'll refer you to the last page, where I quoted one of his links: "Substance abuse was the single largest cause of homelessness for single adults (reported by 68% of cities)."]

But let's move past E Man's more ludicrous statements to what he insists is really his point, which is that people are hungry and homeless because other people have more than "their share," whatever that is. If we take their share and throw it at these people, they will have homes and food. This is his claim.

My response, and that of others, is that a sizable portion of the people won't be helped because they're crazy and/or on drugs. That's because what we're really talking about is the long-term homeless. Your graphs are accurate in saying that job loss is the biggest cause of homelessness. They could hardly be otherwise. But that's taking into account a lot of people who aren't homeless for very long. Being unemployed because you got let go is not the same as being unemployable because you're on crack and picking up transmissions from the planet Zoltax. Also, people who are of sound mind are able to take advantage of the numerous charities and services that already exist for homeless people.

We don't need to restructure society for the people who are already being helped to get back on their feet. For the large percentage of homelessness that is short term, we don't need to do very much, because the system is working for them. That's practically in the name: yes, they're homeless, but not for long. If they need help, by and large they get it, and they move on.

For long-term homelessness the situation is different. For one thing, they really are crazy and on drugs:

Quote :

"According to analyses of data from the 1996 NSHAPCx:Over 60% of people who are chronically homelessness have experienced lifetime mental health problemsOver 80% have experienced lifetime alcohol and/or drug problems"

"Fifty-one percent had a lifetime diagnosis of DSM-IV Axis I disorder, the most common of which was affective disorder, and 53% had a lifetime diagnosis of substance use disorder, the most common of which were alcohol, cannabis, and cocaine. Forty-four percent had ever received some type of psychiatric treatment, and 44% had received treatment for a substance use disorder. Fifty-eight percent had a history of arrests."

"Characteristics of persons experiencing long-term homelessnessIncluding adults and unaccompanied minors (but not children who were with parents), persons experiencing longtermhomelessness have the following characteristics:? 61% have mental illness? 26% have a chemical dependency problem (substance abuse or alcohol abuse disorder)? 19% have dual diagnosis (MI and CD)"

And it turns out that putting a crackhead in a house is often functionally the same as "creating a crackhouse," which leads to greater crime and a decline of the surrounding neighborhood. And crazy people, in addition to being potentially dangerous, are not notoriously good at maintaining themselves and their homes. If they were, they might not be homeless.

Now, it IS true that more resources should probably be devoted to these problems. In particular, the mental health system in this country needs a massive overhaul -- I tried to make a thread about mental health a while back, but it didn't take off, partly because the subject isn't sexy and partly because it's massively complex and difficult to understand, least of all with the sort of short, snarky answers preferred by TWW. And, as has already been said, drug laws need to be relaxed and superior drug treatment facilities developed, though even that would be unlikely to outright solve the problem. But in neither case is the solution "give free homes to all the homeless," nor is it to blame people perceived as having too much (read: having more than The E Man thinks they should)

Looking at his issues page, I see sporadic things I like. There's his support of a program to spend $1 trillion over five years on updating our infrastructure. That's one of his few solid, down-to-earth, sensible ideas, though it is one that has been shared by others to limited effect. And I like most of what he says about immigration, though he has to spoil it for me by throwing in a line about getting rid of NAFTA/CAFTA. Somehow in Bernie's mind these agreements have destroyed all of the jobs in America and also all the jobs in Mexico, too. I don't know where he thinks they all went. Canada, I guess.

But the rest of it is all so much fluff, like it was designed by a committee of political experts to draw maximum attention and interest from young liberals (and in fact I'm pretty sure that's what happened). He's long on things he can't deliver on (and which would be disastrous if he could), he's short on things that the President actually has some power over (like foreign policy).

I guess I'd vote for him if it were Sanders vs. Trump, but otherwise, no.

" It states that society has insufficient productive resources to fulfill all human wants and needs.""

This is why greed is so unethical. When your wants exceed your needs, you're creating more scarcity. Thats the only point I was making and agrees with what you are saying. The only difference is that I'm separating wants/desires from needs. By the definition you posted, you can decrease scarcity simply by wanting less.

Quote :

"Even your breakdown of the causes of homelessness doesn't include "some guy owns a beach house somewhere." Nor is it even "someone else has too much money.""

These are obviously meant as indirect consequences. Productive resources spent on your 2nd house could have been used to mitigate the causes of homelessness.

Quote :

"My response, and that of others, is that a sizable portion of the people won't be helped because they're crazy and/or on drugs."

You seem to be operating on the premise that mental illness or drug addiction are things that cannot be helped. Mental illness is something that could affect anyone btw and is not a choice.

Quote :

"Being unemployed because you got let go is not the same as being unemployable because you're on crack and picking up transmissions from the planet Zoltax."

Its not the same but you again seem to be suggesting the latter two are inferior or somehow more at fault for their unemployment than the people who were let go.

Quote :

"Also, people who are of sound mind are able to take advantage of the numerous charities and services that already exist for homeless people. "

"Sound mind"? So people who are properly educated and mentally healthy are able to take advantage of existing assistance for things that overwhelmingly affect the uneducated and mentally ill? got it.

Quote :

"For the large percentage of homelessness that is short term, we don't need to do very much, because the system is working for them."

You just acknowledged it doesn't work for people who are on drugs. Temporary homelessness and the stress/depression associated with job loss drive people to use drugs and we all know temporary use of drugs leads to drug addiction. No one wakes up one day and says " I wanna be a drug addict".

Quote :

"For long-term homelessness the situation is different. For one thing, they really are crazy and on drugs:"

So you have to acknowledge that we are failing them by not providing adequate treatment, mental healthcare and rehabilitation. All of which could be more accessible if you consider the opportunity cost of the hypothetical 2nd home we were talking about.

Quote :

"And it turns out that putting a crackhead in a house is often functionally the same as "creating a crackhouse," "

This is all great information you have found. Information that means before we can get them in a house, we have to spend much more on getting rid of their "crackhead" label.

Quote :

"1996"

This was a very different time in this country. The demographics of the homeless have changed a lot since then. In conclusion, I'm appalled that you think those who are predisposed to lifetime alcoholism, drug abuse or mental illness, should not have a home.

"Its not the same but you again seem to be suggesting the latter two are inferior or somehow more at fault for their unemployment than the people who were let go. "

Someone that CHOOSES to use drugs certainly is more at fault for their unemployment than someone who was simply let go.

Quote :

"Total resources are pretty much fixed. Having two houses is not just about occupying the 2nd house, its about the resources required to obtain that house and the opportunity cost of not spending that money on other things. If the money spent on 2nd homes was all allocated to prevention of drug abuse, we could all agree that fewer people would be homeless"

Total drugs are fixed, so perhaps if rich people did twice as many drugs, that would be less drugs for homeless people to have so they could get houses instead.

"This is why greed is so unethical. When your wants exceed your needs, you're creating more scarcity. Thats the only point I was making and agrees with what you are saying. The only difference is that I'm separating wants/desires from needs. By the definition you posted, you can decrease scarcity simply by wanting less. "

You are describing mercantilism, which was abandon as a theory for how economics works in the 1800s. May want to update your world view.

Quote :

"Mercantilism was premised on the belief that there is a fixed quantity of wealth in the world, and everyone has to fight over it. Economics, it was felt, is a zero sum game; and since not everyone can win, it becomes acceptable that they don't."

"Someone that CHOOSES to use drugs certainly is more at fault for their unemployment than someone who was simply let go."

Thats the thing though. One doesn't choose to be addicted to drugs anymore than one chooses to lose their job. These are both things that happen to people.

Quote :

"You are describing mercantilism, which was abandon as a theory for how economics works in the 1800s. May want to update your world view. "

I am not describing an economic system. Economics is a human creation and no form of economics "works" outside of its own paremeters.

Mercantillism is nothing like what I am describing

Quote :

"forbidding colonies to trade with other nations;monopolizing markets with staple ports;banning the export of gold and silver, even for payments;forbidding trade to be carried in foreign ships;subsidies on exports;promoting manufacturing through research or direct subsidies;limiting wages;maximizing the use of domestic resources; andrestricting domestic consumption through non-tariff barriers to trade."

Quote :

""Mercantilism was premised on the belief that there is a fixed quantity of wealth in the world, "

Current economic systems are scams and have a total disregard for social and environmental resources. In economics, cutting down a rainforest, killing its inhabitants and selling the lumber is a huge positive and increases wealth for everyone. You can increase wealth, make more people wealthy, but there is always a cost. Costs that are paid by the environment and specifically, people further outside of our economic system (third world, future generations) are disregarded.

Climate change is another example. People talk about "mitigating climate change will destroy the economy" don't understand the scam of the economy not counting costs unless they have to be directly paid to someone in the near future.

Who will pay for the future costs? Education, drug, and mental health programs will be amongst the budget cuts so yes, me driving my muscle car, taking my monthly flight, and eating my steak are all making people homeless and hungry

I feel guilty everytime I take a flight because I know I am playing a role in flooding someone out of their home. Its easy to forget about this guilt because that person is far away in distance and the flood is far away in time but that doesn't mean they don't exist.

Resources are always fixed and our system treats them as infinite. Economics (in its current fashion) is not sustainable for these very reasons.

Quote :

"We already have this. It's why, no matter how badly I want your computer (which I don't think you really need, anyway), no matter how great my greed for it is, I can't just come into your house and take it."

No, but if the labor and natural resources to create that material were stolen, you can take it in an organized form of stealing.

You could also steal that computer from me before I ever get it by buying a 2nd boat instead of paying me, and all of your other workers a fair wage. Just because theft/greed is more nuanced, doesn't make it morally superior to old fashioned burglary.

[Edited on October 5, 2015 at 6:01 PM. Reason : when there is nowhere else to exploit, this economic system will crash]

A person who has 100% control over their life and chooses to take drugs and then becomes addicted...sure, fault is on them, they knew the risks. But their family shouldn't have to suffer for it.

In many cases though, someone gets sick and can't afford hospital care or medication, so they turn to the only available source of relief which then becomes an addiction because they can't deal with their pain any other way. In this scenario, I do not put the blame 100% on the user. Society has to take responsibility for certain life conditions.

"The only difference is that I'm separating wants/desires from needs."

So how do you justify your using a computer, electricity, and your time to post on the wolfweb? Certainly posting in Soap Box is not a need or an obligation. College sports certainly aren't a need, and you seem to be very interested in them. Tell me, how many houses could we have built with the labor, materials, and manpower that went into Carter-Finley?

And that's the moment where I realize I'm arguing with a troll, and move on.

Quote :

"Society has to take responsibility for certain life conditions."

It's always important to remember to replace the word "society" with "I." Should you take responsibility for the life conditions of strangers, man?

So it seems like everyone here disagrees that drug addiction is something that can happen to anyone. Have you guys never had a drink or never used a drug in your life?

drugabuse.gov opening paragraph

Quote :

"Many people do not understand why or how other people become addicted to drugs. It is often mistakenly assumed that drug abusers lack moral principles or willpower and that they could stop using drugs simply by choosing to change their behavior. In reality, drug addiction is a complex disease, and quitting takes more than good intentions or a strong will."

Quote :

"they knew the risks"

big assumption to say everyone who has ever used drugs knew the risks. Its almost like you're saying they decided to become addicts which is never the case.

Quote :

"someone gets sick and can't afford hospital care or medication,"

This is most drug use though. Again, you are treating mental illness as some type of decision that the victim has made. The "Stupid, crazy people" mentality has to end. Depressed people turn to drugs and alcohol.

Quote :

"No shit. Now stop trying to use the law to steal from people."

You can't steal something that is not rightfully owned. Just because you have it or found it doesn't mean it belongs solely to you. Is the sea owned by fish? Do birds own the sky? Earth's natural resources must be shared.

Quote :

"So how do you justify your using a computer, electricity, and your time to post on the wolfweb? Certainly posting in Soap Box is not a need or an obligation. "

I'm an educator and education is the most effective cure for all of these problems. My job gave me this computer to help educate people. If I can turn enlighten one person like you, its progress. I can also practice on you (obviously my whole schpeel on this topic needs work). Also, access to information is one of the most basic human rights. Everyone should have access to the internet in today's world.

Quote :

"College sports certainly aren't a need, and you seem to be very interested in them."

Entertainment is certainly a need. Make no mistake. Also, sports is a major component of education in this country. Sports is a microcosm of life. Participating in student organizations and sports at state gave me very valuable life experience. I was very involved in my time at State so its only right to continue to follow my community.

Quote :

"Tell me, how many houses could we have built with the labor, materials, and manpower that went into Carter-Finley?"

Really, of all the things you attack an academic institution? We could not build academic institutions at all, but that wouldn't be good for society. If you can't distinguish between the importance of education for thousands and the importance of a few people having more luxury items than they can actually use then of course you won't understand.

Then of course, there is the argument that we should build narrow minded schools that don't develop social skills, or teach physical activity, teamwork, and sense of community to its students. Then we could get rid of sports, and other extracurricular, social activities that take place at our schools. You could make a valid argument that college sports have veered off course from what they should be doing but thats a separate argument.

Quote :

"It's always important to remember to replace the word "society" with "I." Should you take responsibility for the life conditions of strangers, man?"

I agree completely and am far from perfect myself. I'm working on changing my lifestyle all of the time and feel guilty for all of the atrocities I take part in. I've been slowly making progress to eating less meat, using public transportation when possible, volunteering in my community, and taking less flights. I've reduced my consumption by wearing old clothes, avoiding disposable dishes, and taking my own bag to the store.

I was taking like 40 flights per year and have made a significant reduction there. Thats still probably the worst thing I do along with eating meat. Just because I'm not perfect, doesn't mean I can't talk about what the right thing to do is. Part of this entire conversation is realizing that ALL people naturally make mistakes and we make mistakes over and over. Once you've realized that, you can have empathy for the mistakes others make. I'm not holding grudges for anyone making mistakes but we must help each other and no ones life should be destroyed over something we all do.

I don't think the person who buys 3 houses and yachts should be punished nor do I think the person who experiments with drugs should be punished. Both are damaging mistakes. One person's mistakes aren't superior to the mistakes of another person.

And if you can justify it, explain to me why massively expensive sports facilities are necessary for either entertainment or physical activity. I live in Benin, a country where 99% of people will never set foot in a stadium, but where everybody over the age of 15 is physically fit enough to whip your ass, and where everybody seems plenty well entertained by talking to one another, which is free.

I'm a fan of higher education and athletics, college and otherwise. We should have these things. We absolutely, certainly, and demonstrably do not "need" them.

The problem here is that you made an outlandish claim, that we should only satisfy our needs, and now you're frantically backtracking on what constitutes a "need" and goddamn it, I'm feeding the troll again. I need to get out of this country.

" Leisure characterized by perceived freedom was related to health in a way consistent with its being able to reduce the usual detrimental impact of high levels of life stress. "

http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/1994-19694-001Again, a large part of the problem is that many don't seem to consider psychological health in the same importance as physical health. This explains why you fault victims of psychological illness.

Quote :

"explain to me why massively expensive sports facilities are necessary for either entertainment or physical activity."

I'm just saying they should exist. Not that they should be so massively expensive There is obviously a huge problem with the money universities are spending on athletics but that is a separate issue from its mere existence. From the university perspective, spending lavish amounts on their program leads to wins which makes their university a stronger sell for strong students and faculty. Its a bad path but thats why its happening. Athletics as well as a lot of other things about the American university need serious reform.

Quote :

"Choices exist, will power is a thing.

Financial success is not a mistake, it is not comparable to experimenting with drugs."

Did you even read the first misconception from drugabuse.gov?

Quote :

"I'm a fan of higher education and athletics, college and otherwise. We should have these things. We absolutely, certainly, and demonstrably do not "need" them."

I can't believe you would say this. Are you seriously saying this or is it a juxtaposition to me saying people do not need to own two houses?

Society certainly needs higher education to function. They allow us to figure out how to make sure we can provide basic needs for the billions of people on the planet without destroying it for future generations.

Quote :

"The problem here is that you made an outlandish claim, that we should only satisfy our needs, and now you're frantically backtracking on what constitutes a "need" "

Individuals have needs and society has needs. Individuals need shelter and society therefor needs engineers to provide adequate shelter for everyone. Thats the need for higher education in a nutshell.

Quote :

"No, but I goddamn well own my bank accounts."

yes but not necessarily all of the things it could buy.

Just because you can buy a slave doesn't mean you rightfully own that person. Thats an easy concept for Americans to understand now that we aren't the ones doing it but it isn't easy for slaveowners in the same way it isn't easy for you to understand how you don't rightfully own some of the things you may legally own.

" Leisure characterized by perceived freedom was related to health in a way consistent with its being able to reduce the usual detrimental impact of high levels of life stress. "

My perceived freedom to buy a second house reduces my stress, therefore is a need. Therefore anytime a hobo even thinks about getting a house they should feel guilt because they are taking a second house away from me.

"big assumption to say everyone who has ever used drugs knew the risks. Its almost like you're saying they decided to become addicts which is never the case. "

Not what I said at all. Addiction is a disease and should be treated as such, not punished. I was making a distinction to show that many people have no choice but to turn to drugs. And in either case, the entire family shouldn't end up on the street because of it.

^The Hillary thread is about scandals and news about the candidate that mostly don't have an effect on the voters' lives.. This thread has become a debate on the issues. Pretty much a microcosm of the campaigns themselves.

I think that's a symptom of companies dumbing down low end work more and more. Fast food jobs have color coded charts and automated systems so even a new immigrant that doesn't speak English can do the job. There are no skills to sharpen doing that kind of work--it's not like a regular restaurant where you actually have to do prep work making meals from scratch eventually moving up to a more than living wage as a head chef.

The bleeding heart in me always wonders how we expect people to get ahead if they don't have the opportunities to better themselves, but the conservative in me thinks that in America if you wanted to get ahead you'd get a job somewhere else you could get those skills.

The implication, supported by other statistics, is that those good jobs don't exist anymore, and they're being eliminated by automation.

Automation actually taking jobs is the end-game, in the meanwhile, it suppresses wages from lowered requirements and expectations (as you described). This is happening in all jobs now, even skilled jobs.

This is seriously a huge problems that republicans are hostile to addressing and most democrats are just blind to (except Bernie).

This isn't a problem supply side economics can fix, because the issue isn't lack of resources on the supply side.

Poor poor 44 year old Anthony Kemp. Choosing to work at a KFC 1.5 hours away. Normally master-chefs get paid six figures! I hear his popcorn chicken is the talk of the town. Why would such a gifted culinary connoisseur be making such a low wage?

If only the evil corporations would stop building robots to make KFC chicken, then more hard working high-school drop outs like Anthony would get paid more than they are worth.

Well food needs to be more regulated indeed. KFC and other fast food are bad in almost every way. They don't just destroy their employees but they destroy entire sectors in both directions. Farmers, employees, customers, and competitors all lose.

They influence destructive farming practices like overuse of antibiotics and drive down food prices and qualityThey cause obesity with aggressive sales of unhealthy products (soda etc)They run good restaurants out of business.

No honorable business can keep up unless we force the bad ones to actually pay their workers.